Re: [Mono-dev] CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider fails on Windows

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Frank Fuchs wrote: > Ok ... I think I got it. Stupid me + f#$!& windows = bad combo. > I think I screwed it all up by defining mono_jit_init_version ("MooseQT Root > Domain","v1.1.4322"). > Windows (at least windows 7) screwed it totally by suppressing all error > m

Re: [Mono-dev] CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider fails on Windows

Ok ... I think I got it. Stupid me + f#$!& windows = bad combo. I think I screwed it all up by defining mono_jit_init_version ("MooseQT Root Domain","v1.1.4322"). Windows (at least windows 7) screwed it totally by suppressing all error messages. Now on my virtual win xp the error message was mor

Re: [Mono-dev] Proposed Patch - Google Native Client

Hi, Those are not always mutually exclusive, they sometimes signal sub-target stuff, like TARGET_PS3 is a sub-target of TARGET_POWERPC. I'm fine with writing #ifdef #elif #endif just need to add another define for but thats not a big problem. Zoltan On Mon, Aug 2

Re: [Mono-dev] Proposed Patch - Google Native Client

Regarding TARGET_NACL, I'm not sure if that's quite the same as the other TARGET_ defines. AFAIK all of the TARGET_ defines are generally mutually exclusive in Mono, but for NaCl we rely on TARGET_X86 or TARGET_AMD64 to be defined along with our __native_client_codegen__ in order to determine whic

Re: [Mono-dev] Proposed Patch - Google Native Client

Hi, Yes, we've been trying to do that for future modifications in amd64. I can > address these issues with x86 with an alternate patch if you'd like, let me > know. > I can do it before checking the changes in, when that happens. > > It looks like you're trying to optimize for as few preproces

Re: [Mono-dev] Proposed Patch - Google Native Client

Hi, comments inline: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > Hi, > > Some further comments: > > - it would be nice to follow the mono coding conventions for the changes, > i.e. > put a space before '(' in calls, use tabs in files where tabs are used > for indentation, etc. > Y

Re: [Mono-dev] Long execution time on first execution (in AOT case)

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote: > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Martin Däumler > wrote: > > [...] > > So, my question is: Is the method "mini_method_compile()" the only > place in Mono that triggers the JIT compiler on that level

Re: [Mono-dev] CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider fails on Windows

Hi, yes the .bat file works standalone. I don't know how to find out whether or not it is invoked. Frank > On 02.08.2010 12:13, Frank Fuchs wrote: > > No this does not seem to be the cause. Any further suggestions? I will try > > to assemble a test case. > > May be it's related to t

Re: [Mono-dev] Proposed Patch - Google Native Client

Hi, Some further comments: - it would be nice to follow the mono coding conventions for the changes, i.e. put a space before '(' in calls, use tabs in files where tabs are used for indentation, etc. - some of the #ifdefs could be avoided by adding a NACL_SIZE() macro: #if defined(__native_cl

Re: [Mono-dev] CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider fails on Windows

On 02.08.2010 12:13, Frank Fuchs wrote: > No this does not seem to be the cause. Any further suggestions? I will try > to assemble a test case. > May be it's related to this thing here ( > http://unity3d.com/unity/whats-new/unity-2.6 ... they mention a failing > CreateProvider) Did you check whet

Re: [Mono-dev] CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider fails on Windows

No this does not seem to be the cause. Any further suggestions? I will try to assemble a test case. May be it's related to this thing here ( http://unity3d.com/unity/whats-new/unity-2.6 ... they mention a failing CreateProvider) - Frank > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:16:32 +0200 > Fro